I'm the commish of a 10-team H2H league, and I've made the following trades throughout the year, and the league is claiming that I'm cheating by ripping other players off. This is a money league. Here are the trades I've made:

**these were all with the same player, but this kid trades a LOT, and everybody in the league has made at least a couple of trades with him.

--------------------------------------

I'll give you this, I got a great deal with the Vlad trade, but that's about it. They're mad about the Huff deal that I made last night, but Corey Patterson is (by all accounts and measures) outperforming Huff right now, and Webb is pitching very well, it just happened that Patterson was an expendable part of my offense and I traded him to a team that needs steals.

None of these are THAT bad, are they? I'm guessing they're just upset they didn't trade for those players first. It seems like whenever I make a trade where I'm not clearly getting taken (as in the Huff/Konerko trade), I get accused of ripping the other players in the league off and then approving the trade.

I've built up a very strong offense, and I think that's what they're complaining about, but that hitting has come at the dire expense of my pitching. I'm playing the game with a different strategy than they are, and they think it's unfair.

I don't veto many trades, and I see no reason to veto any of those trades. Am I out of my mind here?

[size=10]"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." [/size]

I would imagine they are upset because you are doing this with just one other owner. He appears to be there whenever you have a need and you're trading several of the same players back and forth. It does look bad just on that. Most of the trades are equal, but it does have the appearance of looking like collusion since it is the same owner every time and the same players are moving.

He did all of these trades with 4 other teams, on top of my trades. It's obvious he likes to trade, and why can't I take advantage of that? Believe me, they know we're not colluding. We're all close friends and we live together, so there's none of that going on. They're just saying that I'm intentionally decieving him and ripping him off.

I'm not the only manager that has made multiple big name trades with him. He's done it at least once with most of the other guys in the league.

Am I out of line here?

[size=10]"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." [/size]

I've made 6 trades in one of my leagues this year, 4 w the same owner. Don't know him at all, no collusion involved. It's just that we both realize you have to give something to get something and our roster needs have been met in every trade. He simply gives the most reasonable offers.

Everyone else in the league always wants to offer 3 crap guys thinking they equal 1 top player. Or they'll give up a good player, but only if you take a horrible player w him.

Also, the OP is stating I think that only those 3 trades with the ** were with the same owner, not all 6.